The biggest blunder in the church for years!! The Paul Deception!

How does "of the afflictions of Christ" "for his body's sake" fit into your rearranged statement then?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27752111

I did not rearrange the statement, but merely pointed out that you are the one that keeps declaring that Paul;"claims to make up for what Christ lacked in his sacrifice"

Paul is not saying that, so please stop accusing him of it

It says no such thing. It states that he is filling up on that which is lacking of Christ's affliction in his own flesh, for the sake of Christ's body, which is his church.

Surely if we are to die to the old man in order to be transformed into the image of Christ then that would be beneficial to the congregation.

Nobody is your enemy here. All of us can read something wrongly and later be corrected. I do, and am corrected. But I will tell you again, preconceived assumptions like already concluding that Paul is Satan WILL influence how you read a sentence. This verse is proof positive. An honest and humble appraisal by you will reveal it. I have one in my own family who rejects Paul. I can see the progression which happens. Everything and everyone eventually gets rejected. Paul, then Luke, then Peter, then James, then only the three gospels.....then Jesus Christ. They fall in love with Moses and can see nothing else. They say that the old wine is better.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45626409

I was established in protestant Christianity for 20+ years. I was also a teacher in it for 10+ years. Information came along about Paul, and I was willing to consider it with an open mind and prayer. After years of weighing both sides with lots of daily prayer on the subject, I've settled on the side that Paul was false. I would not say that my ideas about Paul are "preconceived" - I would say they were very, very carefully considered.

Rejecting Paul does not automatically mean rejecting Luke, Peter, James, or Christ. One example does not make that true for the rest of us.

Your statements are pro-Paul, and perhaps you have a preconceived notion that Paul is genuine. Perhaps that will influence how you read a sentence. This verse is proof positive. An honest and humble appraisal by you will reveal it.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27752111

Everybody has a different background. On this one set of scripture, and I speak of this one alone, you were in error. Your error was in twisting this scripture to mean that Christ's afflictions were lacking. You have ascribed false words to Paul, words that he did not speak. Think of Peter's warning. I know that you also dismiss 2 Peter too so that caution will probably go unheeded. You twisted scripture.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45626409

I disagree.

The text clearly says: "fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake". The "of" connects "that which is lacking" to "the afflictions of Christ".

Whereas you rearranged it to say "fill up on my part that which is lacking in my flesh of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake". The text does NOT say that, and your rearrangement and reinterpretation doesn't even make sense, and I suggest you twisted scripture instead.

Let our readers choose between us.

Finally, you are in error about my stance regarding 2Peter. I am in full agreement with 2Peter 3:15-17. Peter warned us about those unlearned and unstable people who wrest the Scriptures and interpret Paul's writings to support the erroneous anti-Law doctrines to their own destruction.

Everybody has a different background. On this one set of scripture, and I speak of this one alone, you were in error. Your error was in twisting this scripture to mean that Christ's afflictions were lacking. You have ascribed false words to Paul, words that he did not speak. Think of Peter's warning. I know that you also dismiss 2 Peter too so that caution will probably go unheeded. You twisted scripture.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45626409

You claim that I ascribed false words to Paul, yet you yourself ascribed false words to me! You wrote: "I know that you also dismiss 2 Peter too so that caution will probably go unheeded." As I stated, I am in full agreement with 2Peter.

If you ascribed false words to me, how am I to believe your support for Paul, and your interpretation regarding Paul?

On the other hand, re the words translated "congregation","To everything the is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven."You might say, there was a time to DE-congregate from the accustomed place of assembly for the "congregated throngs".:

“When you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, . . . then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains.” (Matt. 24:15, 16) But how would Jesus’ followers recognize when this prophecy was being fulfilled?

14 As events unfolded, the meaning of Jesus’ words became clear. In 66 C.E., Roman armies under Cestius Gallus arrived in Jerusalem to quell a Jewish rebellion. When the Jewish rebels, known as the Zealots, sought refuge inside the temple fortress, Roman soldiers began to undermine the temple wall. For alert Christians, the meaning was plain to see: A pagan army with its idolatrous standards (“the disgusting thing”) got as far as the temple wall (“a holy place”). It was time for Jesus’ followers to “begin fleeing to the mountains.” But how would they get out of a city that was under siege? Events were about to take an unexpected turn.

15 For no apparent reason, Cestius Gallus and his troops withdrew from Jerusalem and began retreating. The Zealots gave chase. With the warring parties away, Jesus’ followers suddenly had an opportunity to flee. Jesus had specifically instructed them to leave their material possessions behind and depart without delay. (Read Matthew 24:17, 18.) Was prompt action really necessary? The answer soon became clear. Within days, the Zealots returned and began forcing the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judea to join the rebellion. Conditions within the city rapidly deteriorated as rival Jewish factions struggled for control. Flight became increasingly difficult. When the Romans returned in 70 C.E., flight became impossible. (Luke 19:43) Any who had lingered were trapped! For the Christians who had fled to the mountains, heeding Jesus’ instructions meant saving their lives." [link to wol.jw.org]

This isn't preterism- saying it's all already happened, b/c also expecting a further fulfillment in the "great tribulation."I hope someone can figure out 1.that, and if so, then 2.how this might apply to subject under discussion.

Right now I have to go see about someone just taken to hospital very ill.

Interesting ... a girl here is teaching pro-Paul, yet she is disobeying her master?:

"let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law."

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27752111

Psalm 68:11 Jehovah himself gives the saying;

The women telling the good news are a large army.

""let the women keep silence in the churches:"" Is GLP "the churches"? Are you, for instance, part of the "Congregation of God"? [It's possible I guess, but probably won't seem likely to some of us.]

"" When did the “people for special possession” begin to be formed into the Christian congregation? It was at Pentecost 33 C.E. when God poured out holy spirit on the disciples assembled in Jerusalem. Later that day, Peter gave a masterful discourse to a group of Jews and proselytes. Many were stabbed to the heart over Jesus’ death; they repented and were baptized. We find in the historical report that three thousand did so, thereupon becoming part of the new and growing congregation of God. (Acts 2:1-4, 14, 37-47) It was growing because more and more Jews and proselytes accepted the fact that fleshly Israel was no longer the congregation of God. Rather, anointed Christians constituting the spiritual “Israel of God” had become the true congregation of God.—Galatians 6:16; Acts 20:28."" [link to wol.jw.org]

At Pentecost of 33 C.E. holy spirit was poured out on both men and women. In explanation, the apostle Peter quoted Joel 2:28, 29, saying: “‘In the last days,’ God says, ‘I shall pour out some of my spirit upon every sort of flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy and your young men will see visions and your old men will dream dreams; and even upon my men slaves and upon my women slaves I will pour out some of my spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.’” (Acts 2:17, 18) In like manner today, women properly share in the Christian ministry, preaching from house to house and conducting home Bible studies." [link to wol.jw.org]

This is a public forum not "The Congregation" or "the churches" spoken of in the Bible.

Quoting: chauchat

If I may add to your well cited scripture.

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Now read the following also contained within 1 Corinthians 14

V6 "Now, brothers and sisters....v9 9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying?"

V20 "20 Brothers and sisters,......v23 23So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues,"

V26"26What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation"

"Women should remain silent in the churches" does not mean what the poster in red thinks it means. The answer is contained within the same chapter. Paul is in full agreement to the scriptures that you cited.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45626409

Quoting other verses where Paul says the opposite to what he said elsewhere just gives additional support to the idea that he was the "double-minded" man that James warned about in his epistle, and also that he was the "Balaam" that Jesus warned about in Revelation.

Remember, Balaam (of which Paul is a type of in Revelation 2) spoke both truth and lies!

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27752111

That argument is cited in every 'Jesus words only' argument out there. Again, you are allowing other words to interpret scripture for you. Like some Catholics only hear dogma when they read scripture. It is no different. The answer to what he means by women is in that same chapter, and once understood, you will have no further conflict. You will see that seeming differences are no difference at all. You are at a dilemma here and the direction that you take will be determined by how hardened your heart is. Do you love truth enough to admit Lord, I was in error....or do your feet dig a deeper trench in defence of your position? I know what Our Father wants you to do - He needs your heart humbled to teach. A proud heart refuses to budge, even an inch. For no other reason than "you are right". And so far throughout this discussion, you have not shown one ounce of give or softening in your stance. Even when shown to be in error. That is your pride.

On the other hand, re the words translated "congregation","To everything the is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven."You might say, there was a time to DE-congregate from the accustomed place of assembly for the "congregated throngs".:

“When you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, . . . then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains.” (Matt. 24:15, 16) But how would Jesus’ followers recognize when this prophecy was being fulfilled?

...This isn't preterism- saying it's all already happened, b/c also expecting a further fulfillment in the "great tribulation."I hope someone can figure out that, and if so, how this might apply to subject under discussion.

Right now I have to go see about someone just taken to hospital very ill.

Quoting: chauchat

What if what Jesus was talking about wasn't regarding the Roman invasion? What if he was talking about Paul who caused the desolation?

The Holy Spirit told some disciples that Paul shouldn't go to Jerusalem: Acts 21:4, but Paul disobeyed: Acts 21:15, which led to the Temple's desolation. The record says that Paul brought his disciple Trophimus an uncircumcised Gentile with him to Jerusalem. Trophimus believed what Paul taught, that "circumcision and uncircumcision is nothing", that the "Temple's middle wall was torn" and that "God does not live in temples built by human hands". That gave Trophimus confidence to enter into the Temple and so caused its abomination: Ezekiel 44:7.

The Jewish Messianics from Asia (they were taught by Paul before: Acts 21:20-28), had rejected Paul's faith-only message: 2Tim 1:15 and Paul's unwitnessed claims to apostleship: Revelation 2:2. They witnessed this desolation of the Temple, and being zealous for God's Law: Acts 21:20, they were against Paul: Acts 22:27-.

So, in essence, Paul rejected the "old" and confirmed a so-called "new" covenant with his disciples as prophesied in Daniel 9:27, and abominated and desolated the Temple which fulfilled Daniel's (9:27) & Jesus's Matthew 24 prophecy.

Messiah taught about the abomination of desolation in Mt 24:15- as happening after His time on earth Dan 9:26, and would mark a time before the destruction of the Temple Matthew 24:1-3.

I did not rearrange the statement, but merely pointed out that you are the one that keeps declaring that Paul;"claims to make up for what Christ lacked in his sacrifice"

Paul is not saying that, so please stop accusing him of it

It says no such thing. It states that he is filling up on that which is lacking of Christ's affliction in his own flesh, for the sake of Christ's body, which is his church.

Surely if we are to die to the old man in order to be transformed into the image of Christ then that would be beneficial to the congregation.

Nobody is your enemy here. All of us can read something wrongly and later be corrected. I do, and am corrected. But I will tell you again, preconceived assumptions like already concluding that Paul is Satan WILL influence how you read a sentence. This verse is proof positive. An honest and humble appraisal by you will reveal it. I have one in my own family who rejects Paul. I can see the progression which happens. Everything and everyone eventually gets rejected. Paul, then Luke, then Peter, then James, then only the three gospels.....then Jesus Christ. They fall in love with Moses and can see nothing else. They say that the old wine is better.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45626409

I was established in protestant Christianity for 20+ years. I was also a teacher in it for 10+ years. Information came along about Paul, and I was willing to consider it with an open mind and prayer. After years of weighing both sides with lots of daily prayer on the subject, I've settled on the side that Paul was false. I would not say that my ideas about Paul are "preconceived" - I would say they were very, very carefully considered.

Rejecting Paul does not automatically mean rejecting Luke, Peter, James, or Christ. One example does not make that true for the rest of us.

Your statements are pro-Paul, and perhaps you have a preconceived notion that Paul is genuine. Perhaps that will influence how you read a sentence. This verse is proof positive. An honest and humble appraisal by you will reveal it.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27752111

Everybody has a different background. On this one set of scripture, and I speak of this one alone, you were in error. Your error was in twisting this scripture to mean that Christ's afflictions were lacking. You have ascribed false words to Paul, words that he did not speak. Think of Peter's warning. I know that you also dismiss 2 Peter too so that caution will probably go unheeded. You twisted scripture.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45626409

I disagree.

The text clearly says: "fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake". The "of" connects "that which is lacking" to "the afflictions of Christ".

Whereas you rearranged it to say "fill up on my part that which is lacking in my flesh of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake". The text does NOT say that, and your rearrangement and reinterpretation doesn't even make sense, and I suggest you twisted scripture instead.

Let our readers choose between us.

Finally, you are in error about my stance regarding 2Peter. I am in full agreement with 2Peter 3:15-17. Peter warned us about those unlearned and unstable people who wrest the Scriptures and interpret Paul's writings to support the erroneous anti-Law doctrines to their own destruction.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27752111

"I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

"fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in MY FLESH

""let the women keep silence in the churches:"" Is GLP "the churches"? Are you, for instance, part of the "Congregation of God"? [It's possible I guess, but probably won't seem likely to some of us.]

"" When did the “people for special possession” begin to be formed into the Christian congregation? It was at Pentecost 33 C.E. when God poured out holy spirit on the disciples assembled in Jerusalem. Later that day, Peter gave a masterful discourse to a group of Jews and proselytes. Many were stabbed to the heart over Jesus’ death; they repented and were baptized. We find in the historical report that three thousand did so, thereupon becoming part of the new and growing congregation of God. (Acts 2:1-4, 14, 37-47) It was growing because more and more Jews and proselytes accepted the fact that fleshly Israel was no longer the congregation of God. Rather, anointed Christians constituting the spiritual “Israel of God” had become the true congregation of God.—Galatians 6:16; Acts 20:28."" [link to wol.jw.org]

At Pentecost of 33 C.E. holy spirit was poured out on both men and women. In explanation, the apostle Peter quoted Joel 2:28, 29, saying: “‘In the last days,’ God says, ‘I shall pour out some of my spirit upon every sort of flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy and your young men will see visions and your old men will dream dreams; and even upon my men slaves and upon my women slaves I will pour out some of my spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.’” (Acts 2:17, 18) In like manner today, women properly share in the Christian ministry, preaching from house to house and conducting home Bible studies." [link to wol.jw.org]

This is a public forum not "The Congregation" or "the churches" spoken of in the Bible.

Quoting: chauchat

If I may add to your well cited scripture.

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Now read the following also contained within 1 Corinthians 14

V6 "Now, brothers and sisters....v9 9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying?"

V20 "20 Brothers and sisters,......v23 23So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues,"

V26"26What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation"

"Women should remain silent in the churches" does not mean what the poster in red thinks it means. The answer is contained within the same chapter. Paul is in full agreement to the scriptures that you cited.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45626409

Quoting other verses where Paul says the opposite to what he said elsewhere just gives additional support to the idea that he was the "double-minded" man that James warned about in his epistle, and also that he was the "Balaam" that Jesus warned about in Revelation.

Remember, Balaam (of which Paul is a type of in Revelation 2) spoke both truth and lies!

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27752111

That argument is cited in every 'Jesus words only' argument out there. Again, you are allowing other words to interpret scripture for you. Like some Catholics only hear dogma when they read scripture. It is no different. The answer to what he means by women is in that same chapter, and once understood, you will have no further conflict. You will see that seeming differences are no difference at all. You are at a dilemma here and the direction that you take will be determined by how hardened your heart is. Do you love truth enough to admit Lord, I was in error....or do your feet dig a deeper trench in defence of your position? I know what Our Father wants you to do - He needs your heart humbled to teach. A proud heart refuses to budge, even an inch. For no other reason than "you are right". And so far throughout this discussion, you have not shown one ounce of give or softening in your stance. Even when shown to be in error. That is your pride.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45626409

Your "allowing other words to interpret scripture" would only work if Paul's words were "Scripture". They are not. They are simply one man's (Paul the Pharisee's) commentary on Scripture.

Yes, I have humbled my heart to God's leading, and changed my pro-Paul position to an anti-Paul one in obedience. You cannot say that I am not open to change. I made a huge change in my life on this doctrine.

What about you? I can say the same to you: A proud heart refuses to budge, even an inch. For no other reason than "you are right". And so far throughout this discussion, you have not shown one ounce of give or softening in your stance. Even when shown to be in error. That is your pride.

I was established in protestant Christianity for 20+ years. I was also a teacher in it for 10+ years. Information came along about Paul, and I was willing to consider it with an open mind and prayer. After years of weighing both sides with lots of daily prayer on the subject, I've settled on the side that Paul was false. I would not say that my ideas about Paul are "preconceived" - I would say they were very, very carefully considered.

Rejecting Paul does not automatically mean rejecting Luke, Peter, James, or Christ. One example does not make that true for the rest of us.

Your statements are pro-Paul, and perhaps you have a preconceived notion that Paul is genuine. Perhaps that will influence how you read a sentence. This verse is proof positive. An honest and humble appraisal by you will reveal it.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27752111

Everybody has a different background. On this one set of scripture, and I speak of this one alone, you were in error. Your error was in twisting this scripture to mean that Christ's afflictions were lacking. You have ascribed false words to Paul, words that he did not speak. Think of Peter's warning. I know that you also dismiss 2 Peter too so that caution will probably go unheeded. You twisted scripture.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45626409

I disagree.

The text clearly says: "fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake". The "of" connects "that which is lacking" to "the afflictions of Christ".

Whereas you rearranged it to say "fill up on my part that which is lacking in my flesh of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake". The text does NOT say that, and your rearrangement and reinterpretation doesn't even make sense, and I suggest you twisted scripture instead.

Let our readers choose between us.

Finally, you are in error about my stance regarding 2Peter. I am in full agreement with 2Peter 3:15-17. Peter warned us about those unlearned and unstable people who wrest the Scriptures and interpret Paul's writings to support the erroneous anti-Law doctrines to their own destruction.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27752111

"I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

"fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in MY FLESH

for his body's sake, which IS THE CHURCHbody=church

Hear.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45626409

If we go along with your (re)interpretation: How does someone suffer in order to fill up what was lacking in their flesh of the afflictions of Christ for the church?

Michael...I don't think you are far off. I will have to read some of your stuff when I get some free time.

Just leaving one verse from the Gospel of Philip:

And so he dwells either in this world or in the resurrection or in the middle place. God forbid that I be found in there! In this world, there is good and evil. Its good things are not good, and its evil things not evil. But there is evil after this world which is truly evil - what is called "the middle". It is death. While we are in this world, it is fitting for us to acquire the resurrection, so that when we strip off the flesh, we may be found in rest and not walk in the middle. For many go astray on the way. For it is good to come forth from the world before one has sinned.

Everybody has a different background. On this one set of scripture, and I speak of this one alone, you were in error. Your error was in twisting this scripture to mean that Christ's afflictions were lacking. You have ascribed false words to Paul, words that he did not speak. Think of Peter's warning. I know that you also dismiss 2 Peter too so that caution will probably go unheeded. You twisted scripture.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45626409

I disagree.

The text clearly says: "fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake". The "of" connects "that which is lacking" to "the afflictions of Christ".

Whereas you rearranged it to say "fill up on my part that which is lacking in my flesh of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake". The text does NOT say that, and your rearrangement and reinterpretation doesn't even make sense, and I suggest you twisted scripture instead.

Let our readers choose between us.

Finally, you are in error about my stance regarding 2Peter. I am in full agreement with 2Peter 3:15-17. Peter warned us about those unlearned and unstable people who wrest the Scriptures and interpret Paul's writings to support the erroneous anti-Law doctrines to their own destruction.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27752111

"I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

"fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in MY FLESH

for his body's sake, which IS THE CHURCHbody=church

Hear.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45626409

If we go along with your (re)interpretation: How does someone suffer in order to fill up what was lacking in their flesh of the afflictions of Christ for the church?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27752111

No, it's not "my reinterpretation". You are the one twisting it.

"fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for HIS body's sake, which is the church."

"I will show HIM how much he must suffer for my name." Paul understood it. And he willingly embraced that which Jesus commanded of him.

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Now read the following also contained within 1 Corinthians 14

V6 "Now, brothers and sisters....v9 9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying?"

V20 "20 Brothers and sisters,......v23 23So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues,"

V26"26What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation"

"Women should remain silent in the churches" does not mean what the poster in red thinks it means. The answer is contained within the same chapter. Paul is in full agreement to the scriptures that you cited.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45626409

Quoting other verses where Paul says the opposite to what he said elsewhere just gives additional support to the idea that he was the "double-minded" man that James warned about in his epistle, and also that he was the "Balaam" that Jesus warned about in Revelation.

Remember, Balaam (of which Paul is a type of in Revelation 2) spoke both truth and lies!

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27752111

That argument is cited in every 'Jesus words only' argument out there. Again, you are allowing other words to interpret scripture for you. Like some Catholics only hear dogma when they read scripture. It is no different. The answer to what he means by women is in that same chapter, and once understood, you will have no further conflict. You will see that seeming differences are no difference at all. You are at a dilemma here and the direction that you take will be determined by how hardened your heart is. Do you love truth enough to admit Lord, I was in error....or do your feet dig a deeper trench in defence of your position? I know what Our Father wants you to do - He needs your heart humbled to teach. A proud heart refuses to budge, even an inch. For no other reason than "you are right". And so far throughout this discussion, you have not shown one ounce of give or softening in your stance. Even when shown to be in error. That is your pride.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45626409

Your "allowing other words to interpret scripture" would only work if Paul's words were "Scripture". They are not. They are simply one man's (Paul the Pharisee's) commentary on Scripture.

Yes, I have humbled my heart to God's leading, and changed my pro-Paul position to an anti-Paul one in obedience. You cannot say that I am not open to change. I made a huge change in my life on this doctrine.

What about you? I can say the same to you: A proud heart refuses to budge, even an inch. For no other reason than "you are right". And so far throughout this discussion, you have not shown one ounce of give or softening in your stance. Even when shown to be in error. That is your pride.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27752111

What about me?

Those who say "I follow Paul" or "I follow Apollos" or "I follow Peter" or even "you are a follower of Paul"are yet carnal.

Jesus Christ asked me to follow Him.

When I find a seeming discrepancy, I study. I pray. I meditate upon scripture. But I don't do one thing: automatically conclude that someone is wrong, is Satan or deceived. I conclude that I have not yet had a revelation, a revealing of understanding. I wait. And then one morning I wake up and it comes together as the holy spirit unfolds understanding. God does not lie and is not an author of confusion. Therefore, the confusion is in MY mind. I wait for Him to resolve it.

When I find a seeming discrepancy, I study. I pray. I meditate upon scripture. But I don't do one thing: automatically conclude that someone is wrong, is Satan or deceived. I conclude that I have not yet had a revelation, a revealing of understanding. I wait. And then one morning I wake up and it comes together as the holy spirit unfolds understanding. God does not lie and is not an author of confusion. Therefore, the confusion is in MY mind. I wait for Him to resolve it.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45626409

I deny your allusion that I "automatically conclude that someone is wrong when I find a seeming discrepancy". As I stated, my stance is based on years of ongoing prayer and study, into the original languages as well.

I believe I stand on a firm foundation, and I found no evidence in your posts to shake my foundation otherwise. I do not follow Paul the Pharisee in obedience to Jesus who warned me against the Pharisees.

If I'm right about Paul, then my beliefs and salvation is secure. If I'm wrong about Paul, then my beliefs and salvation are still secure, since people were saved a long time before Paul and his new fangled theology appeared. Either way, Paul doesn't matter to me. However, if I'm right about Paul, then your salvation is in jeopardy.

I did not rearrange the statement, but merely pointed out that you are the one that keeps declaring that Paul;"claims to make up for what Christ lacked in his sacrifice"

Paul is not saying that, so please stop accusing him of it

It says no such thing. It states that he is filling up on that which is lacking of Christ's affliction in his own flesh, for the sake of Christ's body, which is his church.

Surely if we are to die to the old man in order to be transformed into the image of Christ then that would be beneficial to the congregation.

Nobody is your enemy here. All of us can read something wrongly and later be corrected. I do, and am corrected. But I will tell you again, preconceived assumptions like already concluding that Paul is Satan WILL influence how you read a sentence. This verse is proof positive. An honest and humble appraisal by you will reveal it. I have one in my own family who rejects Paul. I can see the progression which happens. Everything and everyone eventually gets rejected. Paul, then Luke, then Peter, then James, then only the three gospels.....then Jesus Christ. They fall in love with Moses and can see nothing else. They say that the old wine is better.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45626409

I was established in protestant Christianity for 20+ years. I was also a teacher in it for 10+ years. Information came along about Paul, and I was willing to consider it with an open mind and prayer. After years of weighing both sides with lots of daily prayer on the subject, I've settled on the side that Paul was false. I would not say that my ideas about Paul are "preconceived" - I would say they were very, very carefully considered.

Rejecting Paul does not automatically mean rejecting Luke, Peter, James, or Christ. One example does not make that true for the rest of us.

Your statements are pro-Paul, and perhaps you have a preconceived notion that Paul is genuine. Perhaps that will influence how you read a sentence. This verse is proof positive. An honest and humble appraisal by you will reveal it.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27752111

Everybody has a different background. On this one set of scripture, and I speak of this one alone, you were in error. Your error was in twisting this scripture to mean that Christ's afflictions were lacking. You have ascribed false words to Paul, words that he did not speak. Think of Peter's warning. I know that you also dismiss 2 Peter too so that caution will probably go unheeded. You twisted scripture.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45626409

I disagree.

The text clearly says: "fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake". The "of" connects "that which is lacking" to "the afflictions of Christ".

Whereas you rearranged it to say "fill up on my part that which is lacking in my flesh of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake". The text does NOT say that, and your rearrangement and reinterpretation doesn't even make sense, and I suggest you twisted scripture instead.

Let our readers choose between us.

Finally, you are in error about my stance regarding 2Peter. I am in full agreement with 2Peter 3:15-17. Peter warned us about those unlearned and unstable people who wrest the Scriptures and interpret Paul's writings to support the erroneous anti-Law doctrines to their own destruction.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27752111

"Let our readers choose between us."

I am of the opinion that Paul is a bit over the line in his statement, but I'm not as anti-Paul as the poster. Having been converted by the Gospels, I knew them quite well before studying the Epistles.

Jesus himself said, Mt 5: 37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

There are countless examples within the Epistles of calling on God as proof of a valid witness. Nevertheless, I never expect perfection from a human being, and that most certainly includes Paul. I used to wrestle quite a bit that Paul was not a valid apostle as he was the only one claiming to be one as his conversion along the road to Damascus varies and is expanded upon each time the occurrence is recited.

Never put the cart before the horse, and unfortunately too many Christians quote from the Epistles when suitable instruction is within the Gospels themselves. I do not think Paul was a deceiver, merely imperfect and should not be given first witness but rather secondary confirmation to what is within the Gospels.

On the other hand, re the words translated "congregation","To everything the is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven."You might say, there was a time to DE-congregate from the accustomed place of assembly for the "congregated throngs".:

“When you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, . . . then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains.” (Matt. 24:15, 16) But how would Jesus’ followers recognize when this prophecy was being fulfilled?

...This isn't preterism- saying it's all already happened, b/c also expecting a further fulfillment in the "great tribulation."I hope someone can figure out that, and if so, how this might apply to subject under discussion.

Right now I have to go see about someone just taken to hospital very ill.

Quoting: chauchat

What if what Jesus was talking about wasn't regarding the Roman invasion? What if he was talking about Paul who caused the desolation?

The Holy Spirit told some disciples that Paul shouldn't go to Jerusalem: Acts 21:4, but Paul disobeyed: Acts 21:15, which led to the Temple's desolation. The record says that Paul brought his disciple Trophimus an uncircumcised Gentile with him to Jerusalem. Trophimus believed what Paul taught, that "circumcision and uncircumcision is nothing", that the "Temple's middle wall was torn" and that "God does not live in temples built by human hands". That gave Trophimus confidence to enter into the Temple and so caused its abomination: Ezekiel 44:7.

The Jewish Messianics from Asia (they were taught by Paul before: Acts 21:20-28), had rejected Paul's faith-only message: 2Tim 1:15 and Paul's unwitnessed claims to apostleship: Revelation 2:2. They witnessed this desolation of the Temple, and being zealous for God's Law: Acts 21:20, they were against Paul: Acts 22:27-.

So, in essence, Paul rejected the "old" and confirmed a so-called "new" covenant with his disciples as prophesied in Daniel 9:27, and abominated and desolated the Temple which fulfilled Daniel's (9:27) & Jesus's Matthew 24 prophecy.

Messiah taught about the abomination of desolation in Mt 24:15- as happening after His time on earth Dan 9:26, and would mark a time before the destruction of the Temple Matthew 24:1-3.

But of course, most Christians won't even consider this possibility.

I pray that your ill friend recovers.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27752111

This is really interesting! I didn't even think anyone would think it applied to the topic, let alone that it would be grist for your mill, so to speak, and you'd have an answer all ready. I haven't read all the scriptures you mentioned yet, but I will. I've read all of Matthew 21 and this is the verse that I'd most like to point out to you- Act 21:29 For they had previously seen Trophi·mus+ the E·phesian in the city with him, but they were imagining Paul had brought him into the temple. "Imagining"

Also [don't know what to leave out]-

Acts 21:3 After coming in sight of the island of Cyprus+ we left it behind on the left side and sailed on to Syria,+ and landed at Tyre, for there the boat was to unload [its] cargo.+ 4 By a search we found the disciples and remained here seven days. But through the spirit+ they repeatedly told Paul not to set foot in Jerusalem. 5 So when we had completed the days, we went forth and started on our way; but they all, together with the women and children, conducted us as far as outside the city. And kneeling+ down on the beach we had prayer 6 and said good-bye+ to one another, and we went up into the boat but they returned to their homes.

7 We then completed the voyage from Tyre and arrived at Ptol·e·mais, and we greeted the brothers and stayed one day with them. 8 The next day we set out and arrived in Caes·a·rea,+ and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelizer,* who was one of the seven men,+ and we stayed with him. 9 This man had four daughters, virgins, that prophesied.+ 10 But while we were remaining quite a number of days, a certain prophet named Aga·bus+ came down from Ju·dea, 11 and he came to us and took up the girdle of Paul, bound his own feet and hands and said: “Thus says the holy spirit, ‘The man to whom this girdle belongs the Jews will bind+ in this manner in Jerusalem and deliver+ into the hands of people of the nations.’” 12 Now when we heard this, both we and those of that place began entreating him not to go+ up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered: “What are YOU doing by weeping+ and making me weak at heart?+ Rest assured, I am ready not only to be bound but also to die+ at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 When he would not be dissuaded, we acquiesced with the words: “Let the will+ of Jehovah* take place.”

So Paul agreed with what the holy spirit told those first guys , but later things change and it's different people begging him not to go, but a prophet is telling him what will happen. -Reminds me of Jesus [prophesying] telling disciples what must happen to him, and Peter urging him,"Be good to yourself master! You will not have this fate at all!" And Jesus tells him "Get behind me Satan!"

Anyway the whole of chapter 21 sounds like the locals in Jerusalem were all screaming and running around like chickens with their heads cut off, giving a pretty good impression of being animated by a spirit of confusion, rather than the Holy Spirit.

If they only imagined Trophimus came into the Temple then that Ezekiel 44 wouldn't apply would it?

I'm very interested to read about more of what you've said, but have to leave again rt now. Thanks for kind wishes and prayer.

Matthew 24:4-5 states you will be deceived by people that come using Jesus’ name. Consider the parable of the sower. Jesus was warning us then that as soon as His Gospel was preached, the enemy (Paul) would be there to steal the truth!

***The real (untranslated) name of Jesus is Y'hoshua (pronounced like the name Joshua but with a Y, YoHoshua, some pronounce his name as Yeshua). All refer to the Son of God who came as the promised Messiah who died on the cross for our sins and rose again.

Now before you throw a tantrum and wonder why I haven't been struck by lightening straight from the throne room of God, I can prove to you that Paul was a Fraud using his own words. Of course, if you're a female, and you're in the ministry, you already know he was, you probably just didn't realize it! For to be a female and in the ministry of the Lord, you had to turn your back on Paul to follow Jesus. Congrats! You figured it out! You refused to buy into the lie pie Satan tried to sell you as Paul!

I'm going to make some startling points to wake your mind up into the truth, so hear me out, then I'll go through and explain each one and give you all the proof you need to see for yourself that what I'm saying is indeed the truth.

Paul was Satan in the Flesh

Paul was never recognized as an apostle by the Disciples OR Jesus

Paul was never trained by the disciples, the men who walked, talked, and broke bread with our Saviour. He received his knowledge from "revelations."

Paul's account of his Damascus Road Experience changed every time he told it, thus the disciples knew he was lying.

Paul declared he was teaching another Gospel of which he himself was the Father

Paul declared he himself was the son of God

Paul issued his own commandments and laws for people to adhere to

Paul taught the exact Opposite of what Jesus and His real disciples did.

Paul worked to destroy and undo everything Jesus and His disciples did and were doing.

Paul was never repentant for being the greatest persecutor of Christians at that time! He boasted about it! Over and Over!

Paul said God's law was a Curse. Jesus said it was a blessing. Who's lying?

Paul condemned Jesus and His disciples for false teachings, he condemned Jesus Himself for having long hair in 1 Corinthians 11:14, something approved in Numbers 6:5 and Judges 13:5.

Jesus Said: Keep the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), circumcise male children (Luke 2:21), Paul Said: Circumcision is not necessary (Romans 2:26) that is going against what the Christ said in Luke 2:21.

In 1 Corinthians 15:1 Paul says that he was not giving them anything but what “he preached.” He explained this even further in the second book (or letter) to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:17). It reads - “That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.” He's telling you plain and simple he was speaking of himself and not from or of the Lord!"

Paul cursed Jesus and His disciples

Paul claimed he himself was the son of God

Paul Supported and demanded Adherence to Iniquity (Discrimination), Jesus said to not let it be found among us! Who's lying?

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 510799

THE TWO OF YOU "ARGUING" over this thread does nothing but bring "contention" to the rest of "the body" of believers. STOP right now!!

"salvation" is through Jesus Christ, of course we will all "disagree" at times over "certain issues", that is not the point.

"LOVE" one another , agree to "disagree" and "walk in love" you are both "followers of Christ", preach "CHRIST"!! there is NO SALVATION in any other, it really is that simple.!!

THis is all you really need to know, if you are smart you will figure out the rest of the deception yourselves from there though some careful research and a few key books by authors challenging the work by the one who people have come to call the 'apostle' Paul.

I was established in protestant Christianity for 20+ years. I was also a teacher in it for 10+ years. Information came along about Paul, and I was willing to consider it with an open mind and prayer. After years of weighing both sides with lots of daily prayer on the subject, I've settled on the side that Paul was false. I would not say that my ideas about Paul are "preconceived" - I would say they were very, very carefully considered.

Rejecting Paul does not automatically mean rejecting Luke, Peter, James, or Christ. One example does not make that true for the rest of us.

Your statements are pro-Paul, and perhaps you have a preconceived notion that Paul is genuine. Perhaps that will influence how you read a sentence. This verse is proof positive. An honest and humble appraisal by you will reveal it.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27752111

Everybody has a different background. On this one set of scripture, and I speak of this one alone, you were in error. Your error was in twisting this scripture to mean that Christ's afflictions were lacking. You have ascribed false words to Paul, words that he did not speak. Think of Peter's warning. I know that you also dismiss 2 Peter too so that caution will probably go unheeded. You twisted scripture.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45626409

I disagree.

The text clearly says: "fill up on my part that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake". The "of" connects "that which is lacking" to "the afflictions of Christ".

Whereas you rearranged it to say "fill up on my part that which is lacking in my flesh of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake". The text does NOT say that, and your rearrangement and reinterpretation doesn't even make sense, and I suggest you twisted scripture instead.

Let our readers choose between us.

Finally, you are in error about my stance regarding 2Peter. I am in full agreement with 2Peter 3:15-17. Peter warned us about those unlearned and unstable people who wrest the Scriptures and interpret Paul's writings to support the erroneous anti-Law doctrines to their own destruction.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27752111

"Let our readers choose between us."

I am of the opinion that Paul is a bit over the line in his statement, but I'm not as anti-Paul as the poster. Having been converted by the Gospels, I knew them quite well before studying the Epistles.

Jesus himself said, Mt 5: 37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

There are countless examples within the Epistles of calling on God as proof of a valid witness. Nevertheless, I never expect perfection from a human being, and that most certainly includes Paul. I used to wrestle quite a bit that Paul was not a valid apostle as he was the only one claiming to be one as his conversion along the road to Damascus varies and is expanded upon each time the occurrence is recited.

Never put the cart before the horse, and unfortunately too many Christians quote from the Epistles when suitable instruction is within the Gospels themselves. I do not think Paul was a deceiver, merely imperfect and should not be given first witness but rather secondary confirmation to what is within the Gospels.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 38501639

The gospel of God and the gospel of Christ.

1 Pet 4:17-18 For the time is comethat judgment must begin at the house of God:and if it first begin at us,what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. (Rom. 2:16)

But I certify you brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation from Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:11,12)

1 Pet 4:17-18For the time is comethat judgment must begin at the house of God:and if it first begin at us,what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. (Rom. 2:16)

But I certify you brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation from Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:11,12)

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: Cor 4:3

**********

I don't think that what we read as 'Gospel' in our Bibles existed at the time Paul was preaching "his gospel." However, since Paul received this "by the revelation from Jesus Christ" then Paul should have known that Jesus had said let your yes be yes and your no mean, Paul should never have resorted to supporting his testimony with 'God' as his witness, as there are any number of examples of that already in his letters. I'm not that 'anti-Paul,' but the criticisms against him do have some merit. Nevertheless, Paul did offer his life for Christ and paid the price for it with his own life.

16And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."

Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?

Know no evil.

Thou Shalt Not Murder?No - love your brother.

Everyone that rejects the gospel of Christ is rejecting the Tree of Life.

The mystery hidden from the beginningThe lamb slain from the foundation of the world revealed in the due course of time

He died to the law through the law.

We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other.

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.The Tree......of life.

God is light and in him is no darkness.

The light came into the world and the darkness did not know it

You vipers. You serpents. The serpent said "God knows that your eyes will be opened in the day that you eat of it"Dying thou shalt die.

1 Pet 4:17-18For the time is comethat judgment must begin at the house of God:and if it first begin at us,what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. (Rom. 2:16)

But I certify you brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation from Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:11,12)

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: Cor 4:3

**********

I don't think that what we read as 'Gospel' in our Bibles existed at the time Paul was preaching "his gospel." However, since Paul received this "by the revelation from Jesus Christ" then Paul should have known that Jesus had said let your yes be yes and your no mean, Paul should never have resorted to supporting his testimony with 'God' as his witness, as there are any number of examples of that already in his letters. I'm not that 'anti-Paul,' but the criticisms against him do have some merit. Nevertheless, Paul did offer his life for Christ and paid the price for it with his own life.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 38501639

Revelation 22:21The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people. Amen.

Those like you who constantly criticize, attack and condemn Christians and Christianity while claiming to know the real truths of Christ are never willing or able to answer about Christ directly. Nor do they ever advocate for Christ.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45595821

You contradict EVERY Doctrine that Jesus ever taught; being followers of the Satanist, Paul.

And then you have the unmitigated GALL to ask someone who Jesus is?

Are you KIDDING me?

The question has already been answered; but NOT in direct response to YOU. That is what offends you.

You don't care who Jesus is.

What you CARE about is the teaching of Paul.

It's called pagan metaphysical idolatry...

Which led directly to the hundreds of years of Christian anti-Semitism culminating in the Holocaust.

But He does not. He must see some purpose with people arguing over which book is the right one.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1416114

God didn't destroyed Judas and many others.

God gave us a choice and the way to express our love to Him.

We will be judged by our works, not by our faith. That's why most of us has written God's Law in hearts. That's the corner stone of salvation.

Pharisee Paul is an excuse to this type of Christians, who have an attitude of typical lawyers.

Lawyers are usually a serpent seed and they use law crafty way to make a guilty an innocent man. That's how most christian churches are working, because they are based strictly on twisted letters of Paul.

So God has allowed this to happened and He will choose his people in the basis of our attitude towards Christ words and Paul's words.

Christ words are strict, while Paul gives us many way to sing and say that eventually God will have mercy on all of us.